BS: GUEST: Dave

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM

I was thinking it had to be Boltzmann, Wikipedia confirms that this is right.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 05:23 PM

A LIGO announcement would be cool since their upgrade and relative silence. woowhooo!

Re: the sun going giant Vs. a black night sky could be 5 to 10 billion years apart but close enough for jazz. I would think our own galaxy will be visible until all the hydrogen is used up.

Dave Excellent Sean Carrol post
btw who had S=K.log W on their tombstone?

"Many "misconceptions" in physics stem from an honest attempt to explain technical concepts in natural language, and I try to be very forgiving about those."- its exasperating to me though. because I do it too.

To me Inflation is a contradiction and a ill defined event that demands a better answer , so I try to think of one.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 02:35 PM

This thought of galaxies receding at more than the speed of light infers that relatively, the distance between us and it increases over time at factor that is more than the speed of light, which is of course not quite the same thing.

Many learned constructs have been dismantled over the years but e+mc2 is still a rough and ready guide, and it takes more than mass/wave duality to get around the infinite mass inferred in sweeping statements such as some of those above.

The other part of this debate I struggle with is the concept of space expanding faster than anything to put in it. Space is merely a product of what goes into it and rather than expanding "faster" it merely accommodates. If it didn't you could never calculate for it anyway.

Unless you play dice of course..

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 02:12 PM

For anyone interested in Physics or Astrophysics, there are very, very strong rumours that the discovery of gravitational waves by the Advanced Ligo detector will be announced this coming Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM

"The day our sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth will be close to the time the stars will have receded leaving an all dark starless sky, and then it will be too late to be creative."

Not true for two reasons:

1) The main sequence lifetime of the Sun is roughly twice its current age so the universe will have expanded by a about factor two.

2) Although the galaxies are moving away from each other (some caveats, locally the Andromeda galaxy is approaching because of the gravitational attraction between the two), stars in our galaxy are not. They are evolving, but not receeding.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 11:03 AM

The expansion of the universe is never faster than the speed of light:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

The bit about the recession of some galaxies is true though.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 09:47 AM

This has become a series of refutations of what was never held in contention and a Wizard of Oz giving short retorts.
Where are the explorations of new ideas, where is the fire in the belly? It is like vacationing in the same hotel and beach for a dozen years.

The challenge sirs is to see with new eyes and not just grasp at one's own turf yelling MINE.

PS The day our sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth will be close to the time the stars will have receded leaving an all dark starless sky, and then it will be too late to be creative.
All will be unreachable unless...we consider what is both new and true.

Lets first start by measuring the force it takes to push space from the inside out.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 09:17 AM

So the expansion rate of space can exceed light speed and so does the recession of some galaxies, as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 04:27 PM

No, yes, no, and they are, in that order.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 02:31 PM

Dave, you said, "Comparing the expansion of space to the speed of light is not very meaningful."

The expansion of space can be greater than light speed, and galaxies do recede beyond light speed. That is a meaningful statement.

I made no comment about how such galaxies are visible.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 02:20 PM

Sorry, that Cornell blog is a little confused. here is an extract from the abstract of Davis and Lineweaver:

"We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. "

So the reason that we can observe galaxies which are moving away from us faster than the speed of light is not, as the Cornell blog asserts, because "the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted".

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:55 AM

Dave, here is a quote from Dave Rothstein, a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who used infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy.

"The fact that galaxies we see now are moving away from us faster than the speed of light has some bleak consequences, however. Astronomers now have strong evidence that we live in an "accelerating universe," which means that the speed of each individual galaxy with respect to us will increase as time goes on. If we assume that this acceleration continues indefinitely, then galaxies which are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light will always be moving away from us faster than the speed of light and will eventually reach a point where the space between us and them is stretching so rapidly that any light they emit after that point will never be able to reach us. "

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:50 AM

OK, nice Monty Python moment.

The twist here was I was talking about collapse and you , expanding,


Missing the point is an ongoing human problem, whadyyagonnado.

I point out again there is a search to unify our understanding of the very large and very small but there are too many contradictions and exceptions to do so. EXCUSES ARE PROPOSED like time scaling differently at very small distances or dimensionalities influencing differently on different scales or as I propose a field of force that exists but we have been unaware of its influence.
Classical physics has reached a limit without this missing piece.
Of course on going measurements will continue to expand understanding of our changing universe over time but will be skewed by a fundamental flaw of missing an unseen force.

The phrase the universe is too mysterious to even be able to imagine is defeatist and betrays the human mind which after all was created by the universe.

In an effort to begin again a different insight may provide a big picture perspective with all its parts rather than getting bogged down on the ground and re run things we have already tried.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM

Comparing the expansion of space to the speed of light is not very meaningful. See teh blog post by Sean Carroll which I linked to on January 28th.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 04:31 AM


Keith, this is not the first time you resist/deny the notion that space and its embedded matter can secede from your perspective faster than light, leaving nothing for you to see except an energetic event horizon.

Space can indeed expand faster than light.
That does not create " an energetic event horizon."

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 10:05 PM

O D
Saying there are no black holes is like saying space is flat, which is true, but more like a technicality and an artifact of glitchy metaphors in language. You seem to think it is a mathematical truth ergo you could defend a non existence of all black holes. (wince)

By similar reasoning some mathematicians contend nothing exists except Math. Lets agree a concept is just a concept but a perspective can include a lot more. Another example is from Stephen Hawking who said the universe is like a hole you dig in the back yard. The empty hole is equal to all the stuff you just shoveled out of it. Space and matter when added together is basically zero. ( I would add that if the hole were to accelerate in its size there is something causing that balance to no longer be zero.)

Big picture perceptionalism and field mechanics can go where classical physics can not go.



Keith, this is not the first time you resist/deny the notion that space and its embedded matter can secede from your perspective faster than light, leaving nothing for you to see except an energetic event horizon.

Is there a reason you believe gravity can not cause space to react in such a remarkable manner?


On a different matter, there is a young man who came up with an idea that the one uncompressible expression of matter is the neutrino.   this is a significant contribution to understanding a black hole's interior, gamma ray bursts and the radiation of neutrinos around these
holes.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:23 PM

There is some solid math that says black holes may not even exist.. See our last discussion thread

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 04:18 PM

It is gravity that makes black holes black, but I suppose you could say that it is the distortion of space by gravity that prevents light escaping.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM

btw Keith since space can exceed light speed (Yes)and is what causes a black hole to b black ,(No) space is being sucked into black holes No.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 12:49 PM

I have always wanted to know what and where Donald Bell's Great Attractor is. I think it is a very interesting question.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 12:43 PM

Dave, Health and safety laws being what they are... Ha ha

The LHC seems to have special dispensation.

The idea of linking protective forces like charge in sub atomic particles in matter with space having a similar protective force like an anti space is my idea but is unrelated to anti matter. Anti space speculation is a concept I am still trying to find meaningful comparisons to describe. I am currently visualizing anti space as a dimension but nothing so grandiose as having anti space time qualities where time runs backwards, although Albert would probably say "however the math does not disallow it".


Keith, The word 'exponential' is indeed hyperbole I used to modify the word number. While you are right it could not be truly an exponential growth in the number of black holes over time, speaking of such enormous power and mind shredding distances of the universe does tempt me to exaggerate a glimpse of the big picture of black hole formations and growth.

Data of growing numbers of black holes:

First, once a black hole is formed it has been determined that it will exist for trillions upon trillions of years. So every time a stellar black hole is formed or black hole mergers create super massive black holes it is all the existing holes plus one more.
I am reasoning that that constitutes growth.
The Keplar telescope would give us actual data but there are other ways to see the obvious. Got one I can use?

Tracing the curve of more black hole formation with the beginning acceleration of space started around the 7 billion year mark of the age of the universe.

btw Keith since space can exceed light speed and is what causes a black hole to b black , space is being sucked into black holes.
call it extreme space time but gravity is taking space along for a ride.

I have some demolition work to do, bbl.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:59 AM

I think that the difference between the black hole model and the starburst model for quasars is a little more than fine detail. Personally I would back Lynden-Bell's model (the black hole model), but I would be prepared to be shown to be wrong.

Even with pulsars, there are various options for the energy source, rotation, accretion, and magnetism. All three are thought to be important, and dominant in different objects.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:43 AM

As with history, you get consensus on the main issue but debate about the fine detail.
There is consensus on what quasars are, and what caused that pulsing signal discovered by Bell Burnell.
There is consensus on public support for WW1 and the generally good leadership of the army.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:27 PM

Dave is absolutely correct. By the way I saw an interesting show on one of the Kepler planets that is so close to a star no one can figure out how it happened. No planet could form that close according to our understanding. Way cool actually

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 02:10 PM

Keith, as far as Quasars go, there is a series of papers by Roberto Terlevich and collaborators suggesting that at least some sources classified as Seyfert 2 galaxies and quasars are not powered by non-thermal radiation from black holes but by a number of compact supernova remnants from massive stars. Roberto moved to Mexico some years ago and I don't know whether he is still working on this.

Pulsars are a case where the basic physics is pretty well understood, and there is consensius about the basic components, but its magnetic fields and general relativity, so in detail there is quite a lot of discussion about the nature of the emission and the details of the origin of the rotating neutron stars.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 01:01 PM

You showed us there was no consensus on that Dave, but there is consensus on many things.
We now know what quasars are, and what caused that weird, pulsing signal discovered by Bell Burnell.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 12:43 PM

Consensus can be a dangerous thing, if there is consensus on something which is wrong, or even, as in this case, on something which the data do not require.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 11:55 AM

Also historians Musket, but on some facts there exists consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 11:23 AM

Keith. All cosmologists share scepticism. Unlike God botherers, the job description requires it.

Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:00 AM


Both the rate of stellar black formation and the growing of supermassive black holes and mergers are increasing. Data can confirm this.

Perhaps you can share that with us.
Have you dropped "exponential?"

Also I am not familiar with a concept of "volumetric space."
Is it your own?


As volumetric directional space is pulled and compressed into black holes

Is that your too?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM

Donuel,

1) What data confirm that the rate of stellar black hole formation is increasing?

2) Antimatter (positrons, antiprotons etc.) does not have negative mass it has positive mass. It is distinguished from normal matter by having the opposite charge (and some other esoteric properties).

3) The bit about antimatter traveling backwards in time appears to be the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation. Now these were seriously clever guys, but really its a mathematical formalism rather than a physical reality. But if thinks travel negatively in time this does not mean things happen instantly with not time at all, they take the same amount of time but in the opposite direction.

4) A consequence of the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation would be that the gravitational force between matter and antimatter would be repulsive. This would be difficult to test, Health and Safety legislation being what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 08:23 PM

Both the rate of stellar black formation and the growing of supermassive black holes and mergers are increasing. Data can confirm this.

Why is directional space expanding ?

As volumetric directional space is pulled and compressed into black holes the amount of this kind of space is thinned out in the rest of our universe. If we assume there is another kind of space (anti space) that balances out the energy of space just as charge keeps matter in check and prevents it from spontaneously exploding, then the outward push of anti space no matter how small will push on the normal volumetric space and cause "space" to expand.

This is my explanation for dark energy but I have had no direct input or response from people who ought to be able to have the imagination to see this process as I described or present their own ideas how dark energy might work. I have seen other proposals from around the globe how dark energy may exist but found wanting.

This is a bit like saying a certain boson is respondsible for mass but it is invisible. Anyone know how to look for antispace?
Its properties include having no dimension of distance, The origin of antimatter comes from the mass-shell condition E^{2} - p^{2} = m^{2} and in particular the presence of the taking the square.
in units where c=1, it would be an environment in which time is negative so things happen instantly with no time at all , like the reactions of entangled particles.

So OK let me have it, is this just the illusion of knowledge? Did this idea just take a dump in my skull or does this explain more than you thought?

If you can't repeal and replace at least you can criticize based upon the data you possess.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 04:28 AM

Why do you say that "more black holes are generated at an exponential rate ?"

Also, their gravity distorts space but does not "draw" space in. Space is expanding not diminishing.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 04:43 PM

As more black holes are generated at an exponential rate more space is being drawn inside them. I contend that a distance dimensional space outside the black holes has to stretch outward and larger to balance the tremendous loss of space to achieve an equilibrium with the counterpart of space which is a form of anti space.
It is a reaction to increasing entropy.

Once again, without even accepting this theory, can you picture this process in your own mind as an explanation for dark energy?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM

Thanks Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 04:13 AM

Keith, from a recent preprint:

"Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae"

by: Jeppe Trøst Nielsen, Alberto Guffanti, Subir Sarkar


Abstract:

"The "standard" model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present --- as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these "standardisable candles" indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354


I don't know the first two authors, but Sarkar is Professor of theoretical particle physics and cosmology at Oxford University, and extremely eminent.

Dust has long been one of the big caveats with this result.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 06:22 PM

What I like about all the theories is people are thinking and offering ideas, even ones we cannot prove as of yet hold merit for some day we may. My feeling is the universe is far more complex than we can guess. Expecially if it is part of a multi dimensional universe of multi universes

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:43 PM

Dave,
Carlton Baugh, Professor of physics at Durham University, says
"We know that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, but what causes this growth remains a mystery. The most likely explanation is that a strange force dubbed "dark energy" is driving it."

"In the 1990s, astronomers studying exploding stars – supernovae – in galaxies far away discovered that the universe's expansion was accelerating. This came as surprise, as scientists at the time thought it was slowing down. With no obvious solution at hand, scientists argued that there must be some sort of mysterious force – dark energy – pulling the universe apart."

Are you aware of any cosmologist who share your scepticism?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:20 PM

It is because the jury is out on the matter of; dark energy, inflation and dark matter is the reason why a simple explanation of all three mysteries with the addition of one unseen force of an anti space is so intriguing and enticingly elegant.

Actually the mystery of dark matter may revolve around the left over energies and non interactive particles left over from duality explosions like matter anti matter.

Inflation, dark energy and expansion mysteries may involve the new aspects of space we have not considered until now.

While the jury is out we can rely on some measurements we already have and add our own 2 bits.

For now everyone can play.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 04:35 PM

AN INTRODUCTION TO DIRECTIONAL SPACE AND HOW WE HAVE AGREED TO MAKE IT FLAT.


how is space flat?

Once you go flat you never go back!

but add another form of space and things open up.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 04:13 PM

If you bought a pair of crocs I would think the damn things would breed, let alone expand.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:40 PM

Expansion of course, even the recent acceleration of expansion but the mysterious theory of inflation that stands at the heart of modern cosmology for which we can not see having the size of the universe go from a speck to a boundless expanse.

I am not alone in being skeptical of the BICEPS telescope and program That may have measured nothing more than dust and not proof of an inflation event. Even a founder of that program is suspect they only measured dust..


Serendipitously but not surprisingly my question about the central issue of inflation is the cover story for Astronomy Magazine March 2016. I read it just a moment ago.
It is titled the Race to Cosmic Dawn. The writing flows nicely compared to my gross abbreviated style with most of the main characters in the race to understand inflation including Guth.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:18 PM

I'll give you some definite proof.

Buy a pair of Crocs, and within 12 months the bloody things will have expanded at least 2 sizes.

Now apply quantum maths to this observable phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:14 PM

Yes, in the conclusions of that paper:

"Observations of a single flare cannot distinguish the quantum-gravity scenarios considered here from modified synchrotron self-Compton mechanisms [23, 31]."

[31] is Bendarek and Wagner, published the same year (2008). Both of those authors are on both papers.

They need more observations, as they say, to distinguish between Quantum gravity effects and plasma effects.


I don't think anybody doubts that the universe is expanding. What I think needs further proof is that it is accelerating.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 01:43 PM

Dave,
Probing quantum gravity using photons from a flare of the active galactic nucleus Markarian 501 observed by the MAGIC telescope

J. Albert et al. (for the MAGIC Collaboration), John Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos, A.S. Sakharov, E.K.G. Sarkisyan

Donuel,
Do you folks agree that current inflationary theories are grossly lacking substantive proof despite Nobel prizes or initial praise?

There is substantive proof of expansion.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM

My own personal view is that there is a lot of modern cosmology where the ideas and the maths are running way ahead of the observational tests to either verify or falsify the theories. Its probably a minority view amongst professionals, but i would regard all of inflation, dark energy and dark matter as interesting ideas on which the jury is still out.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

Yes   I do

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:33 AM

Listening in to discussions among Keith, Dave and others is an enjoyable educational opportunity.

Do you folks agree that current inflationary theories are grossly lacking substantive proof despite Nobel prizes or initial praise?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

You know I suspected I had it backwards the whole time, but time is limited to double check. For this mistake I do not blame dyslexia but instead plain ol sloppiness with a side dish of stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM

Keith, do you have a reference for that paper? This is all done with MAGIC (name of a telescope) and they write many papers, each with between 140 and 250 authors, listed in alphabetical order. Robert Wagner is on most of them.

I can find a paper by W. Bednerek and R.M. Wagner proposing a synchrotron self-Compton model for explaining the time delay between the arrival of low energy photons and high energy photons.

The thing though Donuel is that its the lower energy photons which arrive first, thats the observation and the theory.